...By definition, the RNG cannot have bias, yet seems to often glitch on certain things.
A computerized "Random Number Generator" is just a widely used misnomer. Computers are incapable of generating truly random numbers. The correct term, is actually "Pseudo-Random Number Generator."
The only way to generate truly random numbers is with random events. Even a perfectly balanced die won't generate random results because of biases in the way an individual places the die in the throwing hand and the patterns of motion that occur in said hand.
There is a possibility that quantum computers will eventually be able to generate random numbers, IF the physical states of various components are incorporated into the algorithms.
Ergo, all "RNG's" must have biases programmed into them to correct for the inherent lack, of randomness.
Note: If using a perfect die for unbiased rolls, the distribution of results will eventually be flat, with all options occurring the same number of times. Uncorrected computer RNG's eventually produce 'bell-shaped' distributions.
...By definition, the RNG cannot have bias, yet seems to often glitch on certain things.
A computerized "Random Number Generator" is just a widely used misnomer. Computers are incapable of generating truly random numbers. The correct term, is actually "Pseudo-Random Number Generator."
The only way to generate truly random numbers is with random events. Even a perfectly balanced die won't generate random results because of biases in the way an individual places the die in the throwing hand and the patterns of motion that occur in said hand.
There is a possibility that quantum computers will eventually be able to generate random numbers, IF the physical states of various components are incorporated into the algorithms.
Ergo, all "RNG's" must have biases programmed into them to correct for the inherent lack, of randomness.
Note: If using a perfect die for unbiased rolls, the distribution of results will eventually be flat, with all options occurring the same number of times. Uncorrected computer RNG's eventually produce 'bell-shaped' distributions.
It is far more likely that there is some error in how the numbers are being applied than there actually being a problem with biases in an RNG.
You are technically correct in your characterization of how a computer simulates randomness. However, biases in, specifically, the generation of the random numbers would likely not create this sort if behavior.
Uncorrected computer RNG's eventually produce 'bell-shaped' distributions.
I think of DBNG as a Sine Wave. Sometimes you are on a roll, and at the top of the wave. Other times, you are stuck at the bottom, where where everything fails or that one needed component will just not drop....
I don't see a post about it, so I figured to ask this here:
In the current event with only one faction, a bunch of fleet mates are talking about how their "max VP runs" have dropped almost in half. Players who usually can reach the 4000VP shuttles (if only to fail them and fall back down) are now only reaching ~1800VP shuttles before hitting the same failure rate.
Players lower down (like myself) have noticed the same thing: Maxing out at basically half the VP as prior events.
So would this be due to the fact that there is only 1 faction to work with vs 3, or is this another change in the mechanics? Since everyone seems going through it, player's event ranks are about usual, while threshold rewards are going to take some magic (read: money) to reach this time.
I don't see a post about it, so I figured to ask this here:
In the current event with only one faction, a bunch of fleet mates are talking about how their "max VP runs" have dropped almost in half. Players who usually can reach the 4000VP shuttles (if only to fail them and fall back down) are now only reaching ~1800VP shuttles before hitting the same failure rate.
Players lower down (like myself) have noticed the same thing: Maxing out at basically half the VP as prior events.
So would this be due to the fact that there is only 1 faction to work with vs 3, or is this another change in the mechanics? Since everyone seems going through it, player's event ranks are about usual, while threshold rewards are going to take some magic (read: money) to reach this time.
Because of the +1 success and -1.5 failure metric and the need to get 40 net successes for 4K, the fewer missions there are that you can spam at 1 minute duration will make it harder to get to 4K.
As as example, the best quick starts can get you to 23 successes with 3 star boosts or 25 with 2 4 star boosts. If you went 26-6 with your next 32 missions that would leave you at another 17 net successes and just barely at 4K missions.
I actually think this type of event with fewer missions has more strategy, for example if you try to use time boosts to get from 23/25 to 40 successes you are going to make much harder to get to 40. To get 16 net success at 90% success it takes 22 missions or 5-6 shuttle rounds at 80% it takes around 32 missions or 8 shuttle rounds. If using time boosts lowers your shuttle percentage from 90 to 80 and adds an extra 2-3 shuttle rounds to get to 4K, maybe your are better off skill boosting your way to 4K and then using the time boosts there.
Granted they follow it up with a galaxy part to completely change things up, but it would be interesting to have one of these limited mission events for a full faction event.
...By definition, the RNG cannot have bias, yet seems to often glitch on certain things.
A computerized "Random Number Generator" is just a widely used misnomer. Computers are incapable of generating truly random numbers. The correct term, is actually "Pseudo-Random Number Generator."
The only way to generate truly random numbers is with random events. Even a perfectly balanced die won't generate random results because of biases in the way an individual places the die in the throwing hand and the patterns of motion that occur in said hand.
There is a possibility that quantum computers will eventually be able to generate random numbers, IF the physical states of various components are incorporated into the algorithms.
Ergo, all "RNG's" must have biases programmed into them to correct for the inherent lack, of randomness.
Note: If using a perfect die for unbiased rolls, the distribution of results will eventually be flat, with all options occurring the same number of times. Uncorrected computer RNG's eventually produce 'bell-shaped' distributions.
It is far more likely that there is some error in how the numbers are being applied than there actually being a problem with biases in an RNG.
Whatever the cause is it's not that important. What really bothers me is DB's dismissive stance.
Just so we're clear, despite everyone picking Clinton to win the presidency and losing, statistically they were correct?
You're demonstrating another misunderstanding of the basics of statistical analysis.
The polls forecast the number of votes for each candidate; analysts in turn use that data to predict winners and losers.
In the case of the 2018 election the actual vote numbers were within the forecasts' margins of error even though the predictions of the overall results were incorrect.
This is just one reason why statisticians tend to become bitter over time. 😈
Point of order: Clinton never ran for the presidency in 2018.
I tracked over 5000 shuttle "sets" since the last year. And I'm seeing a solid 10-20% lower return on what's displayed .. consistent ... repeatable ... and averaged over that large set.
so either I'm just unlucky (possible) .. or their %'s are not accurate.
I have now adjusted myself to read "80%" as "70%" .. and lo and behold ... the results are MUCH more aligned with the expectation ... *shrug* .. your mileage might vary .. but I for one, don't believe the accuracy of those displayed #'s at all.
I've spent a year on this, essentially whatever is shown is not what is being calculated on the server's end. So I give up lol. Whatever happens now happens.
I'm just curious what that legal action is gonna look like...
Again, my reference to legal action was specifically about potential unwarranted removal or editing of the initial post.
The post was deliberately tailored to comply with DB's ToS, and as anyone with the slightest knowledge of legal precedents concerning internet message boards is aware; companies are legally bound to their own ToS.
It's quite clear.
I guess it's too much to expect people to actually read a post before responding to it.
I'm just curious what that legal action is gonna look like...
Again, my reference to legal action was specifically about potential unwarranted removal or editing of the initial post.
The post was deliberately tailored to comply with DB's ToS, and as anyone with the slightest knowledge of legal precedents concerning internet message boards is aware; companies are legally bound to their own ToS.
It's quite clear.
I guess it's too much to expect people to actually read a post before responding to it.
I’m following this thread with interest, just as I have with others on this topic. It’s quite clear to me that with such large sample sizes the advertised success rates are wrong, but i’m burnt out talking about it and trying to fight my position.
Three quick points I’d like to add:-
1- In my own experience of recording failures, there seems to be a point where if you have exactly the right bonus crew and can hit 98-99% on all shuttles, the failures return to an expected level. This is frustrating, because it means a lot of the heaviest players and/or ‘whales’ may not witness the problem at all, and that gets translated into a lack of backing on the forums and within community chats.
2- My personal theory is that the percentages are only an overall portrait of accuracy when viewed across all players. Players within bands that only have low or mid scoring crew, tend to pass more than they should. Then, players in the 70-95% advertised range get stung to compensate. It only returns to an ‘honest as advertised’ pass rate above 95-97%. This means DB can legitimately claim that the percentages are accurate overall, however this does mean the percentages we see on a personal level aren’t necessarily accurate. Precision and appropriateness in DB’s use of English has often been problematic, and they may not realise that they way it is presented to us in its current method is misleading/not as advertised.
3- In my opinion, the amount of data that players here have collected to prove the point that something is amiss would be justification in seeking total refunds from their store provider (steam, Apple, google etc) on the basis of false advertising. Doesn’t even need to be made into an official matter (I appreciate that’s not what you are trying to do, but someone could consider it). Where are the advertised drop rates else where in game, as requested in Apple’s terms? Still missing.
Anyway, good luck with this and thank you for bringing this up! I’ll be reading the thread and staying out of the way for other people to make related points.
...2- My personal theory is that the percentages are only an overall portrait of accuracy when viewed across all players. Players within bands that only have low or mid scoring crew, tend to pass more than they should. Then, players in the 70-95% advertised range get stung to compensate. It only returns to an ‘honest as advertised’ pass rate above 95-97%. This means DB can legitimately claim that the percentages are accurate overall, however this does mean the percentages we see on a personal level aren’t necessarily accurate. Precision and appropriateness in DB’s use of English has often been problematic, and they may not realise that they way it is presented to us in its current method is misleading/not as advertised...
Some of you may be amused to know that I just collected my first 4/4 4k run of the event. The CoS forecasts were 56-64%.
I've also had events where my 80-89% shuttles ran perfectly, but my 90%+ missions failed almost half the time.
This is why I haven't included event missions in my analysis.
...biases in, specifically, the generation of the random numbers would likely not create this sort if behavior.
It's actually quite easy to 'throw' the results in an RNG:
Generate random number n [1-100]
Adjust n - n 20% = x
If x = or > 20 success
A gross oversymplification, but substantially accurate.
You have illustrated my point perfectly, actually. The problem, likely, lies in the algorithm that utilizes the randomized numbers, not the randomization process itself.
You have illustrated my point perfectly, actually. The problem, likely, lies in the algorithm that utilizes the randomized numbers, not the randomization process itself.
Well, the algorithm in use was working correctly at one time. For a while after getting up to 1500 missions or so, the displayed percentage and the actual percentage were within a percent of each other. The same cannot be said for the last 2000 missions I have tracked, so DB broke something by either changing the algorithm or introducing a bug.
...biases in, specifically, the generation of the random numbers would likely not create this sort if behavior.
It's actually quite easy to 'throw' the results in an RNG:
Generate random number n [1-100]
Adjust n - n 20% = x
If x = or > 20 success
A gross oversymplification, but substantially accurate.
You have illustrated my point perfectly, actually. The problem, likely, lies in the algorithm that utilizes the randomized numbers, not the randomization process itself.
Whatever the cause is it produces observable and measurable effect but DB consistently denies its existence. It's bothering.
...biases in, specifically, the generation of the random numbers would likely not create this sort if behavior.
It's actually quite easy to 'throw' the results in an RNG:
Generate random number n [1-100]
Adjust n - n 20% = x
If x = or > 20 success
A gross oversymplification, but substantially accurate.
You have illustrated my point perfectly, actually. The problem, likely, lies in the algorithm that utilizes the randomized numbers, not the randomization process itself.
Whatever the cause is it produces observable and measurable effect but DB consistently denies its existence. It's bothering.
Actually they go to great pains to not deny it.
As I mentioned earlier, when confronted with the stark differences between predicted success rates and actual success rates DB has repeatedly stated that the system is working as intended.
When I've pointed out that that is a non-answer, the topic is changed to something irrelevant.
When I have pushed for a direct answer the other party goes silent.
DB is fully aware that there posted chances of success - whether for shuttle missions or item drops - are facetious.
The only possible conclusion at this point is that they have made lying to their customers official company policy.
I stopped reading, someone may have been more to the point.
But many of us are thinking the error in success occurs only when using boosts.
That is, you boost a skill the crew does not have and it increases success percent.
I remember one poster said they were treating the boost as not working if they did not have the skill. They made their own calculations and were getting numbers that were much closer to the mean.
I really do not worry about it myself, I just cherry pick my mission s for the event crew i have.
I'm just curious what that legal action is gonna look like...
Again, my reference to legal action was specifically about potential unwarranted removal or editing of the initial post.
The post was deliberately tailored to comply with DB's ToS, and as anyone with the slightest knowledge of legal precedents concerning internet message boards is aware; companies are legally bound to their own ToS.
It's quite clear.
I guess it's too much to expect people to actually read a post before responding to it.
Or to actually read the TOS, as there's something you missed:
"Disruptor Beam reserves the right to review materials posted to the Communication Services and to remove any materials at any time, without notice, for any reason and in its sole discretion."
So umm, no legal action is available if you are moderated and it does not fall within an explicit listing of the Community Guidelines. They could go all draconian and delete every post that has the phrase Kelvin in it and that would still be within their legal rights. Wouldn't necessarily be wise, but its within the TOS that we all are bound by and do not have standing to do anything about it other than voice concern.
I'm just curious what that legal action is gonna look like...
Again, my reference to legal action was specifically about potential unwarranted removal or editing of the initial post.
The post was deliberately tailored to comply with DB's ToS, and as anyone with the slightest knowledge of legal precedents concerning internet message boards is aware; companies are legally bound to their own ToS.
It's quite clear.
I guess it's too much to expect people to actually read a post before responding to it.
Or to actually read the TOS, as there's something you missed:
"Disruptor Beam reserves the right to review materials posted to the Communication Services and to remove any materials at any time, without notice, for any reason and in its sole discretion."
So umm, no legal action is available if you are moderated and it does not fall within an explicit listing of the Community Guidelines. They could go all draconian and delete every post that has the phrase Kelvin in it and that would still be within their legal rights. Wouldn't necessarily be wise, but its within the TOS that we all are bound by and do not have standing to do anything about it other than voice concern.
edit: Grammar and clarification
DB’s right to remove any communications does not preclude them from opening themselves up to legal action as a result. I don’t know what laws different users here might be subject to, but DB can’t remove or evade those laws just by saying so in the T’s and C’s.
I personally have no idea what the OP had in mind with this comment, but I don’t think we should allow ourselves to drift off topic.
Don’t we all want to see the shuttle failure percentages issue sorted out once and for good?
I'm just curious what that legal action is gonna look like...
Again, my reference to legal action was specifically about potential unwarranted removal or editing of the initial post.
The post was deliberately tailored to comply with DB's ToS, and as anyone with the slightest knowledge of legal precedents concerning internet message boards is aware; companies are legally bound to their own ToS.
It's quite clear.
I guess it's too much to expect people to actually read a post before responding to it.
Or to actually read the TOS, as there's something you missed:
"Disruptor Beam reserves the right to review materials posted to the Communication Services and to remove any materials at any time, without notice, for any reason and in its sole discretion."
So umm, no legal action is available if you are moderated and it does not fall within an explicit listing of the Community Guidelines. They could go all draconian and delete every post that has the phrase Kelvin in it and that would still be within their legal rights. Wouldn't necessarily be wise, but its within the TOS that we all are bound by and do not have standing to do anything about it other than voice concern.
edit: Grammar and clarification
DB’s right to remove any communications does not preclude them from opening themselves up to legal action as a result. I don’t know what laws different users here might be subject to, but DB can’t remove or evade those laws just by saying so in the T’s and C’s.
I personally have no idea what the OP had in mind with this comment, but I don’t think we should allow ourselves to drift off topic.
Don’t we all want to see the shuttle failure percentages issue sorted out once and for good?
Evading which law by snipping a post at their discretion?
I'm just curious what that legal action is gonna look like...
Again, my reference to legal action was specifically about potential unwarranted removal or editing of the initial post.
The post was deliberately tailored to comply with DB's ToS, and as anyone with the slightest knowledge of legal precedents concerning internet message boards is aware; companies are legally bound to their own ToS.
It's quite clear.
I guess it's too much to expect people to actually read a post before responding to it.
Or to actually read the TOS, as there's something you missed:
"Disruptor Beam reserves the right to review materials posted to the Communication Services and to remove any materials at any time, without notice, for any reason and in its sole discretion."
So umm, no legal action is available if you are moderated and it does not fall within an explicit listing of the Community Guidelines. They could go all draconian and delete every post that has the phrase Kelvin in it and that would still be within their legal rights. Wouldn't necessarily be wise, but its within the TOS that we all are bound by and do not have standing to do anything about it other than voice concern.
edit: Grammar and clarification
DB’s right to remove any communications does not preclude them from opening themselves up to legal action as a result. I don’t know what laws different users here might be subject to, but DB can’t remove or evade those laws just by saying so in the T’s and C’s.
I personally have no idea what the OP had in mind with this comment, but I don’t think we should allow ourselves to drift off topic.
Don’t we all want to see the shuttle failure percentages issue sorted out once and for good?
Evading which law by snipping a post at their discretion?
I would imagine it depends on what content is being removed, why, what is left after the removals, etc. On the flip side, it could be that they’d be in trouble for leaving IN something defamatory or libellous. The point is, putting something in the T’s and C’s doesn’t necessarily absolve them of legal action.
If the OP feels it important to mention, then that’s up to them. I have no idea what they might have in mind and whether they would be successful in pressing it forward or not.
Not really interested to debate this with you, the OP or anyone else, so lets agree to disagree. I want to help try and help find a way forward with the shuttle failure issue.
I'm just curious what that legal action is gonna look like...
Again, my reference to legal action was specifically about potential unwarranted removal or editing of the initial post.
The post was deliberately tailored to comply with DB's ToS, and as anyone with the slightest knowledge of legal precedents concerning internet message boards is aware; companies are legally bound to their own ToS.
It's quite clear.
I guess it's too much to expect people to actually read a post before responding to it.
Or to actually read the TOS, as there's something you missed:
"Disruptor Beam reserves the right to review materials posted to the Communication Services and to remove any materials at any time, without notice, for any reason and in its sole discretion."
So umm, no legal action is available if you are moderated and it does not fall within an explicit listing of the Community Guidelines. They could go all draconian and delete every post that has the phrase Kelvin in it and that would still be within their legal rights. Wouldn't necessarily be wise, but its within the TOS that we all are bound by and do not have standing to do anything about it other than voice concern.
edit: Grammar and clarification
DB’s right to remove any communications does not preclude them from opening themselves up to legal action as a result. I don’t know what laws different users here might be subject to, but DB can’t remove or evade those laws just by saying so in the T’s and C’s.
I personally have no idea what the OP had in mind with this comment, but I don’t think we should allow ourselves to drift off topic.
Don’t we all want to see the shuttle failure percentages issue sorted out once and for good?
Evading which law by snipping a post at their discretion?
I would imagine it depends on what content is being removed, why, what is left after the removals, etc. On the flip side, it could be that they’d be in trouble for leaving IN something defamatory or libellous. The point is, putting something in the T’s and C’s doesn’t necessarily absolve them of legal action.
If the OP feels it important to mention, then that’s up to them. I have no idea what they might have in mind and whether they would be successful in pressing it forward or not.
Not really interested to debate this with you, the OP or anyone else, so lets agree to disagree. I want to help try and help find a way forward with the shuttle failure issue.
Lol, that's fine, if you want to agree to disagree. Further obfuscation in relation to it while then discontinuing does nothing but erroneously back the disclaimer which frankly, was an attempt to use legal jargon to troll.
"Disruptor Beam reserves the right to review materials posted to the Communication Services and to remove any materials at any time, without notice, for any reason and in its sole discretion."
So umm, no legal action is available if you are moderated and it does not fall within an explicit listing of the Community Guidelines. They could go all draconian and delete every post that has the phrase Kelvin in it and that would still be within their legal rights. Wouldn't necessarily be wise, but its within the TOS that we all are bound by and do not have standing to do anything about it other than voice concern.
edit: Grammar and clarification
If you actually follow case law you'd know that such umbrella statements - while common - have no legal standing.
Precedent states that if you post a ToS, you are bound to it. However you cannot describe what constitutes fair use of the site and then flush it by adding 'and whatever we feel like.'
It would be like stating that anything posted to the forum becomes DB's intellectual property to use as they wish in perpetuity. There are sites that post just such gibberish, but it doesn't make it true.
edit: to be clear, I am not suggesting that DB makes any such claim. editorial: it's regrettable that I even have to make such a statement, but it appears there are some people who are willing to take any statement out of context to distract from the original purpose of this discussion.
Comments
A computerized "Random Number Generator" is just a widely used misnomer. Computers are incapable of generating truly random numbers. The correct term, is actually "Pseudo-Random Number Generator."
The only way to generate truly random numbers is with random events. Even a perfectly balanced die won't generate random results because of biases in the way an individual places the die in the throwing hand and the patterns of motion that occur in said hand.
There is a possibility that quantum computers will eventually be able to generate random numbers, IF the physical states of various components are incorporated into the algorithms.
Ergo, all "RNG's" must have biases programmed into them to correct for the inherent lack, of randomness.
Note: If using a perfect die for unbiased rolls, the distribution of results will eventually be flat, with all options occurring the same number of times. Uncorrected computer RNG's eventually produce 'bell-shaped' distributions.
It is far more likely that there is some error in how the numbers are being applied than there actually being a problem with biases in an RNG.
You are technically correct in your characterization of how a computer simulates randomness. However, biases in, specifically, the generation of the random numbers would likely not create this sort if behavior.
It's actually quite easy to 'throw' the results in an RNG:
Generate random number n [1-100]
Adjust n - n 20% = x
If x = or > 20 success
A gross oversymplification, but substantially accurate.
I think of DBNG as a Sine Wave. Sometimes you are on a roll, and at the top of the wave. Other times, you are stuck at the bottom, where where everything fails or that one needed component will just not drop....
In the current event with only one faction, a bunch of fleet mates are talking about how their "max VP runs" have dropped almost in half. Players who usually can reach the 4000VP shuttles (if only to fail them and fall back down) are now only reaching ~1800VP shuttles before hitting the same failure rate.
Players lower down (like myself) have noticed the same thing: Maxing out at basically half the VP as prior events.
So would this be due to the fact that there is only 1 faction to work with vs 3, or is this another change in the mechanics? Since everyone seems going through it, player's event ranks are about usual, while threshold rewards are going to take some magic (read: money) to reach this time.
Because of the +1 success and -1.5 failure metric and the need to get 40 net successes for 4K, the fewer missions there are that you can spam at 1 minute duration will make it harder to get to 4K.
As as example, the best quick starts can get you to 23 successes with 3 star boosts or 25 with 2 4 star boosts. If you went 26-6 with your next 32 missions that would leave you at another 17 net successes and just barely at 4K missions.
I actually think this type of event with fewer missions has more strategy, for example if you try to use time boosts to get from 23/25 to 40 successes you are going to make much harder to get to 40. To get 16 net success at 90% success it takes 22 missions or 5-6 shuttle rounds at 80% it takes around 32 missions or 8 shuttle rounds. If using time boosts lowers your shuttle percentage from 90 to 80 and adds an extra 2-3 shuttle rounds to get to 4K, maybe your are better off skill boosting your way to 4K and then using the time boosts there.
Granted they follow it up with a galaxy part to completely change things up, but it would be interesting to have one of these limited mission events for a full faction event.
Whatever the cause is it's not that important. What really bothers me is DB's dismissive stance.
Point of order: Clinton never ran for the presidency in 2018.
As you were, carry on. 😀
Task Force Pike/Garrett's Giants, Founder
Task Force April, Fleet Founder Emeritus
Newfie Central, Squad Founder, In Memoriam
I stand sit corrected.
Of course, 2018 is far from over, and at this point nothing would surprise me.
so either I'm just unlucky (possible) .. or their %'s are not accurate.
I have now adjusted myself to read "80%" as "70%" .. and lo and behold ... the results are MUCH more aligned with the expectation ... *shrug* .. your mileage might vary .. but I for one, don't believe the accuracy of those displayed #'s at all.
If you win a primary and lose the general election, the party will never back you a second time. As far as the DNC is concerned, Hillary is done.
Again, my reference to legal action was specifically about potential unwarranted removal or editing of the initial post.
The post was deliberately tailored to comply with DB's ToS, and as anyone with the slightest knowledge of legal precedents concerning internet message boards is aware; companies are legally bound to their own ToS.
It's quite clear.
I guess it's too much to expect people to actually read a post before responding to it.
I’m following this thread with interest, just as I have with others on this topic. It’s quite clear to me that with such large sample sizes the advertised success rates are wrong, but i’m burnt out talking about it and trying to fight my position.
Three quick points I’d like to add:-
1- In my own experience of recording failures, there seems to be a point where if you have exactly the right bonus crew and can hit 98-99% on all shuttles, the failures return to an expected level. This is frustrating, because it means a lot of the heaviest players and/or ‘whales’ may not witness the problem at all, and that gets translated into a lack of backing on the forums and within community chats.
2- My personal theory is that the percentages are only an overall portrait of accuracy when viewed across all players. Players within bands that only have low or mid scoring crew, tend to pass more than they should. Then, players in the 70-95% advertised range get stung to compensate. It only returns to an ‘honest as advertised’ pass rate above 95-97%. This means DB can legitimately claim that the percentages are accurate overall, however this does mean the percentages we see on a personal level aren’t necessarily accurate. Precision and appropriateness in DB’s use of English has often been problematic, and they may not realise that they way it is presented to us in its current method is misleading/not as advertised.
3- In my opinion, the amount of data that players here have collected to prove the point that something is amiss would be justification in seeking total refunds from their store provider (steam, Apple, google etc) on the basis of false advertising. Doesn’t even need to be made into an official matter (I appreciate that’s not what you are trying to do, but someone could consider it). Where are the advertised drop rates else where in game, as requested in Apple’s terms? Still missing.
Anyway, good luck with this and thank you for bringing this up! I’ll be reading the thread and staying out of the way for other people to make related points.
Some of you may be amused to know that I just collected my first 4/4 4k run of the event. The CoS forecasts were 56-64%.
I've also had events where my 80-89% shuttles ran perfectly, but my 90%+ missions failed almost half the time.
This is why I haven't included event missions in my analysis.
You have illustrated my point perfectly, actually. The problem, likely, lies in the algorithm that utilizes the randomized numbers, not the randomization process itself.
Well, the algorithm in use was working correctly at one time. For a while after getting up to 1500 missions or so, the displayed percentage and the actual percentage were within a percent of each other. The same cannot be said for the last 2000 missions I have tracked, so DB broke something by either changing the algorithm or introducing a bug.
Whatever the cause is it produces observable and measurable effect but DB consistently denies its existence. It's bothering.
Actually they go to great pains to not deny it.
As I mentioned earlier, when confronted with the stark differences between predicted success rates and actual success rates DB has repeatedly stated that the system is working as intended.
When I've pointed out that that is a non-answer, the topic is changed to something irrelevant.
When I have pushed for a direct answer the other party goes silent.
DB is fully aware that there posted chances of success - whether for shuttle missions or item drops - are facetious.
The only possible conclusion at this point is that they have made lying to their customers official company policy.
But many of us are thinking the error in success occurs only when using boosts.
That is, you boost a skill the crew does not have and it increases success percent.
I remember one poster said they were treating the boost as not working if they did not have the skill. They made their own calculations and were getting numbers that were much closer to the mean.
I really do not worry about it myself, I just cherry pick my mission s for the event crew i have.
I recorded whether boosts were used and what type and found no statistically significant relationship on that factor.
Also, after applying a skill boost I go back and recheck crew assignments as frequently the optimal crew member for a slot will change.
Or to actually read the TOS, as there's something you missed:
https://www.disruptorbeam.com/tos
"Disruptor Beam reserves the right to review materials posted to the Communication Services and to remove any materials at any time, without notice, for any reason and in its sole discretion."
So umm, no legal action is available if you are moderated and it does not fall within an explicit listing of the Community Guidelines. They could go all draconian and delete every post that has the phrase Kelvin in it and that would still be within their legal rights. Wouldn't necessarily be wise, but its within the TOS that we all are bound by and do not have standing to do anything about it other than voice concern.
edit: Grammar and clarification
DB’s right to remove any communications does not preclude them from opening themselves up to legal action as a result. I don’t know what laws different users here might be subject to, but DB can’t remove or evade those laws just by saying so in the T’s and C’s.
I personally have no idea what the OP had in mind with this comment, but I don’t think we should allow ourselves to drift off topic.
Don’t we all want to see the shuttle failure percentages issue sorted out once and for good?
Evading which law by snipping a post at their discretion?
I would imagine it depends on what content is being removed, why, what is left after the removals, etc. On the flip side, it could be that they’d be in trouble for leaving IN something defamatory or libellous. The point is, putting something in the T’s and C’s doesn’t necessarily absolve them of legal action.
If the OP feels it important to mention, then that’s up to them. I have no idea what they might have in mind and whether they would be successful in pressing it forward or not.
Not really interested to debate this with you, the OP or anyone else, so lets agree to disagree. I want to help try and help find a way forward with the shuttle failure issue.
over-performed, if you ask me
Second Star to the Right - Join Today!
Lol, that's fine, if you want to agree to disagree. Further obfuscation in relation to it while then discontinuing does nothing but erroneously back the disclaimer which frankly, was an attempt to use legal jargon to troll.
If you actually follow case law you'd know that such umbrella statements - while common - have no legal standing.
Precedent states that if you post a ToS, you are bound to it. However you cannot describe what constitutes fair use of the site and then flush it by adding 'and whatever we feel like.'
It would be like stating that anything posted to the forum becomes DB's intellectual property to use as they wish in perpetuity. There are sites that post just such gibberish, but it doesn't make it true.
edit: to be clear, I am not suggesting that DB makes any such claim. editorial: it's regrettable that I even have to make such a statement, but it appears there are some people who are willing to take any statement out of context to distract from the original purpose of this discussion.